"Delete" should always be taken to mean "remove from this list I'm looking at right here" and never assumed to mean "actually really for real delete", unless regulations require hard deletion. (And even then, mostly it's still in a backup and will go away in 7 years or whatever dumb thing).
If you don't like this probably your only option is to never create the thing in the first place.
> they're the kind of person who deeply analyzes this sort of question
Clearly they didn't deeply analyze the question in the relevant context. Answering "yes" to this is high school level "edginess".
One needn't condescend, as there are equivalent questions at all levels of hiring, all with equally obvious (in)correct answers. No, you shouldn't answer "what is your biggest challenge" with "not showing up to work drunk", even if it is indeed your biggest challenge, and one that you work hard to successfully overcome every day.
Another commenter refers to this as "walking the corporate walk" but I think it's more "having an understanding of context and appropriate levels of sharing" and it applies at all times in life.
Is the implication that some but not all kinds of capitalist societies would encourage or cause people to view many "normal" things (not just inherently or clearly transactional things) as transactional?
What would be the kinds of capitalism that would or would not cause a transactional mindset to seep into all parts of life?
I signed up for https://infrequent.app/ when it was a Show HN just to try it out and it actually worked (probably about as well as a "non-busy" TODO in my calendar app with an alert). Enough to remind me to call 1 or 2 people that I like to talk to but often leave for too long, anyway.
My understanding is that this is a ~5% decrease in employees? Pretty easy to imagine losing 1 person in your 20 person department. Really depends on the "who", which tends to get lost in headlines consisting of large numbers.
Is it neoliberalism specifically, or even just generally living in a capitalist society? (Which hey, I'm happy enough to live in a capitalist society, it has been good to me, but I definitely notice myself evaluating nearly everything through a financial or transactional lens).
> verifying software is correct implies solving the halting problem.
No, producing a program that can verify that all correct programs are correct implies solving the halting problem.
Verifying a particular piece of software is correct just implies you've proved that one piece correct. (And probably wasted your time dicking around with it only to find that the actual issue was in software you treated as 'outside' of the software you were verifying...)
If you compose SQL with subqueries you tend to do less composition in general (because you are restricted in what you can compose), and you are more at the mercy of the query planner, which is its own black box.
I'd rather simply understand how my ORM generates queries, and then use the ORM to get the full power of my language of choice in creating the right SQL queries.
Sure, this is a simple example -- and you are right, if you are just writing a few selects, you may not find any value.
ORMs (or query-builders, as some like to draw a distinction there) become more valuable as you use them to compose and transform queries. SQL is decidedly not composable.
My understanding is that while there were substantial "land bridges" at the time Australia was initially colonized, nevertheless sea crossings were still required. But it's a bit tough to follow honestly, do you have a clearer picture?
If you don't like this probably your only option is to never create the thing in the first place.